Do we generally hate Clamshells?

[Sepia]

I really like my MS230, even though they are looked on with disdain by most. It's light, reliable, was really cheap and is plenty powerful enough for small quick jobs. It really doesn't even enter my mind that it is a clamshell design.

 

[a. palmer jr.]

After reassembling one I believe my place in Hades is reserved.

The 029/290 saws could have been designed so the engine slips out a little easier, they always seem to hang up toward the front of the starter opening. On the 017/018 they don't have that.

 

[Matt Hogden]

Out of all my clamshells, i like the MS181 the best. Would love to see a pro version of that little saw

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[LoveStihlQuality]

An MS 391 drew my first blood.. sliced my trigger finger with a big ace knife while boxing it up to sell. 9 stiches pretty much killed the profit on that one! Brad Snelling piled on..."Friends don't let friends run clamshells!"

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[Woody912]

The 029/290 saws could have been designed so the engine slips out a little easier, they always seem to hang up toward the front of the starter opening. On the 017/018 they don't have that.

I lack the manual dexterity to get the carb boot and clamp back thru the plastic partition to the cylinder!

 

[milkman]

I like running the 025/ms250, light and can outcut me.

 

[TheTone]

Less gasket/seal area, much easier bearing & seal replacement. It's a compact, self contained engine. The way the cylinder and cap castings support the crank should be very strong.

Agree. I especially like the 025 and MS250. Great for small stuff and good power/weight ratio. Love the pro saws too for bigger wood. Granted the pro saws are easier for top end work and you can adjust squish, but you can't beat the clamshells for quick, easy rebuilds, without special tools. Need new bearings or crank? You don't have to split a case, just pop the pan off.

 

[a. palmer jr.]

I lack the manual dexterity to get the carb boot and clamp back thru the plastic partition to the cylinder!

Never had any trouble with that.

 

[a. palmer jr.]

I generally take more time rebuilding the clamshells because I usually soak most every part in Simple Green and rinse and dry them off. I guess I would on a pro saw also but sometimes you don't have to disassemble the whole thing on a pro.

 

[TheTone]

I lack the manual dexterity to get the carb boot and clamp back thru the plastic partition to the cylinder!

From the wording of your post, it sounds like you're going in the wrong direction. I attach the intake boot to the cylinder after putting some red Dirko in the cylinder intake groove, then clamp it - depending on the saw - then, after sliding engine in and attaching the handle, loop string around the carb end of the boot, and slip the strings through the hole in the plastic (handle). Then pull the end of the strings and pop the boot through. Works great, I gawr-on-tee.

 

[joe25DA]

Less gasket/seal area, much easier bearing & seal replacement. It's a compact, self contained engine. The way the cylinder and cap castings support the crank should be very strong.

If they are better why don't the pro saws use that design? Aside from the pro Mac's 600-800 (very good saws) I can't think of any. I look st it like unibody vs frame. Manufactures can say all they want about unibody strength but until I see them under real trucks taking real abuse I'll take a framed truck.
Not saying clamshells are junk either.

 

[burnses]

here we go....I built a 029 that was totally complete form the crap pile at the dump....scorched top end...ran nice when it was done and sold it buyer loves it..they cut wood they will put chips on the ground....just kinda bulky but I was just not used the the build as all the stuff I have built is split case....I would do another if it was free but ya just cant spend much money on then till your upside down on what ya can get for one..from my experience I think that is a fair ....oh I forgot...290 toaster with handles!

 

[Conquistador3]

Reading old topics and posts it seems this place has swung 180°, from "Anything less than a 70cc pro saw is junk and a 90cc+ magnesium case monstrosity from the 60's is the best even if you only have a couple of twigs to cut" to "Look how smart I am for buying a Chinese clamshell and how stupid you are for buying a Stihl/Husqvarna/Shindaiwa/whatever. I'll brag about it every second to cover the fact I spend more time fixing my contraption than cutting wood".

 

[Tor R]

I unvoid those Husky clamshells like 340/345/350's.
I've taken in a few nice looking 345's, but both ends up to be no profit sale due minor leak in their seals, most lads in my land want saws OEM.
Its easier with 346/353/545/550 projects, all 4 keeps a good value.

 

[Sepia]

Reading old topics and posts it seems this place has swung 180°, from "Anything less than a 70cc pro saw is junk and a 90cc+ magnesium case monstrosity from the 60's is the best even if you only have a couple of twigs to cut" to "Look how smart I am for buying a Chinese clamshell and how stupid you are for buying a Stihl/Husqvarna/Shindaiwa/whatever. I'll brag about it every second to cover the fact I spend more time fixing my contraption than cutting wood".

The audience/participants has changed. Many of the old posters here are (or were) from production backgrounds. They needed a 70+ cc saw to make a living and thus that's where their interests lied. Those guys have largely moved on to other sites and some have simply left the interwebs, while others have retired. A large proportion of the crowd here today are firewooders or occasional users, along with collectors and repair techs. They don't have the same needs or interests as the production fellas, so they migrate towards the smaller/lighter/cheaper saws. There are great saws in every CC class and that has always been true and will likely never change. Even some of the lowly clamshells have cut mountains of firewood with little more than proper daily maintenance.

 

[Woody912]

From the wording of your post, it sounds like you're going in the wrong direction. I attach the intake boot to the cylinder after putting some red Dirko in the cylinder intake groove, then clamp it - depending on the saw - then, after sliding engine in and attaching the handle, loop string around the carb end of the boot, and slip the strings through the hole in the plastic (handle). Then pull the end of the strings and pop the boot through. Works great, I gawr-on-tee.

Do you leave the clamp on the cylinder side? First one of these I have ever tried so I am flying blind

 

[Chris-PA]

It's interesting how a simple discussion of methods to construct the bottom end of an engine immediately begins to morph into a different, emotional discussion about the glories of the old days, etc. Both construction techniques have advantages and disadvantages, as is always the case, and which one is better depends on what characteristics you are prioritizing. Its only about how the castings that support the crankshaft are formed. There are absolutely no differences in the displacement, porting or power output that can be made in either construction. There is no requirement to use a clamshell in a plastic case, or orient it vertically or horizontally.

Take whatever your favorite pro saw is using traditional construction, and the exact same top end could be cast with extensions to support the crank and make it a clamshell. There would be zero difference in power output - it's just a machine.

Look at the Echo CS510/520/530 - a clamshell with quad closed transfers in an alloy case. My old McCinderblock SE3420 (PM605/610) is a clamshell.

From a manufacturing point of view, a clamshell has advantages, in that you can build it as a complete separate unit, even test it, and bolt it into a chassis at a later point in the process. You can use the same engine in different chassis (Poulan did this). You could put some in plastic chassis and some in metal chassis (I think Echo came close to this). The design and manufacturing process for an engine is quite different than that for the rest of the saw, so it makes sense to build them separately too.

If they are better why don't the pro saws use that design? Aside from the pro Mac's 600-800 (very good saws) I can't think of any. I look st it like unibody vs frame. Manufactures can say all they want about unibody strength but until I see them under real trucks taking real abuse I'll take a framed truck.
Not saying clamshells are junk either.

I suspect it's mostly about customer acceptance and entrenched manufacturing/design philosophies of the companies making them. To me a traditional construction would be like having your truck frame supporting your crankshaft, with the top of the engine bolted on to that, whereas a clamshell looks like a complete, self contained engine.

 

[TheTone]

Do you leave the clamp on the cylinder side? First one of these I have ever tried so I am flying blind

The Stihl clamshell saws use different methods for securing the intake boot to the cylinder. Some (e.g. MS250) use a large plastic plate with a hole for the boot; this snugs up around the boot and goes on before the engine is slid into the saw. These seem to work well. Others (like the MS170, I believe) use a plastic ring; these I replace with a metal clamp that goes on before the engine goes in. Then the string loop method is used to bring the carb side of the intake boot through the hole in the handle.

 

[walterg]

I like clamshells. Take for instance this Stihl 021 with easy fill oil tank option.



Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

 

[Pioneer]

Short answer? Only the ones that are a real PITA to work on.